• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Box-office performance of the films (1989-2002)

indycar

Commander
Red Shirt
When TVH was released, it was the 5th-highest grossing film of 1986. However, it would the final film in the series to reach the top 10 highest-grossing films of the year until 2009. I could understand that TFF underperformed (25th ranked) due to competition from other films and poor reception (Harv Bennett claimed that since TNG was on, people didn't go to the films multiple times since there was a weekly series for them to watch, which there could be some truth in this). The next three films easily made back their money and were among the top 20 films (TUC had the highest-opening weekend in December at the time). INS made back its money, but was only 28th. Was this due to poor reception, two weekly series or both? NEM's failure credited to having competition from The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Die Another Day.

What would you all say is the reason for the decline in performance? I think its due to having at least one weekly series during this time frame and mixed reception (TUC and FC are the only films that it seems most fans consider good).
 
  • General movie audience not caring about TNG version of Trek (large cast was part of the problem).
  • Franchise exhaustion (Trek isn't a cop show; it has to be special, and when you keep putting it out there it stops being special).
  • Inconsistent quality.
 
More tickets to Nemesis might have been sold if there hadn't been a 4-year hiatus. (This is irrespective of the quality of the film. No matter when it was released, few people would have paid to see it twice. But had it been released in 2000, more people might have paid to see it once.)

As for me, I couldn't work up the enthusiasm to go to a theatrical showing of Insurrection, much less Nemesis. In fact I haven't been to a Trek movie since Thanksgiving weekend, 1996.

TNG ought to have gone the TV-movie route, via UPN, perhaps three or four per year; the frequency of two-part episodes was already increasing by season 7.
 
I would attribute NEM's failure to it's being a lousy movie. :lol:

Kor
 
NEM's failure credited to having competition from The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Die Another Day.

That's insane.

Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and James Bond films all releasing in the same week? :drool:

So many big blockbuster movies in such a short space of time.
 
NEM's failure credited to having competition from The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Die Another Day.

That's insane.

Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and James Bond films all releasing in the same week? :drool:

So many big blockbuster movies in such a short space of time.

And one of them got squeezed out by the rest.
 
NEM's failure credited to having competition from The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Die Another Day.

That's insane.

Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and James Bond films all releasing in the same week? :drool:

So many big blockbuster movies in such a short space of time.

And one of them got squeezed out by the rest.

Don't forget the romantic comedy Maid in Manhattan beat Nemesis at the Box Office.
 
More tickets to Nemesis might have been sold if there hadn't been a 4-year hiatus. (This is irrespective of the quality of the film. No matter when it was released, few people would have paid to see it twice. But had it been released in 2000, more people might have paid to see it once.)

Because ... people might have been getting tired of the endless flow of Trek themed entertainment product, but at least if Nemesis had come out in 2000, they wouldn't have to wait so long for it?
 
If a movie is well received by critics and the audiences that see it you blame under performance on competition, over saturation or poor marketing. When it is panned the simplest explanation is that nobody wanted to see it.
 
If a movie is well received by critics and the audiences that see it you blame under performance on competition, over saturation or poor marketing. When it is panned the simplest explanation is that nobody wanted to see it.

I agree, but I also think that had the film had less competition, it would have likely made back its money domestically, but I still think that it would have made less than INS.
 
More tickets to Nemesis might have been sold if there hadn't been a 4-year hiatus. (This is irrespective of the quality of the film. No matter when it was released, few people would have paid to see it twice. But had it been released in 2000, more people might have paid to see it once.)

Because ... people might have been getting tired of the endless flow of Trek themed entertainment product, but at least if Nemesis had come out in 2000, they wouldn't have to wait so long for it?

You can argue it the other way around, though: If only two years had intervened, fans would have seen only two years' worth of other Trek product, not four, and thus would have been less oversaturated with it by the time the movie came out.
 
NEM's failure credited to having competition from The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Die Another Day.

That's insane.

Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and James Bond films all releasing in the same week? :drool:

So many big blockbuster movies in such a short space of time.
DAD and Harry Potter came out the month before...TTT came out within a week after NEM.

As mentioned, it was not one of these films, but Maid in Manhattan, that beat NEM at the box office on its opening weekend.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top